Published in full: super-injunction document at the heart of the attempt to gag Parliament

The Parliamentary document which includes details of one of the last remaining
super-injunctions is published in full today by The Daily Telegraph
on its website.

By Christopher Hope and Robert Winnett

2:50PM GMT 29 Feb 2012

In the document, Mark Burby, a Channel Islands businessman, claims he was gagged by the “ex–spouse of an Asian head of state” in a super–injunction in 2009.

According to Mr Burby’s submission to a committee of MPs and peers, the super–injunction governed six general areas including information/allegations concerning any personal relationship of any kind between the claimant and a man who is not her ex–husband”.

He says he was told that the “Asian head of state” was a “substantial” backer of al–Qaeda, and had advance warning of the suicide bombings on London's transport system in 2005.

The woman “and her solicitors have boasted to me and others that she ‘owns’ the courts in England and Wales and the Government, he adds.

Mr Burby alleges that the unnamed ex–spouse, whom he describes as one of the wealthiest women in the world, had a sexual relationship “with one of her two solicitors”, as well as two other men, one of which resulted in her having an abortion.

Archerfield Partners, a firm of solicitors acting for the ex-wife, has made a series of threats against the joint committee over its decision to publish the submission on its website.

In a letter to every member of the 26–strong committee, as well as to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve, a High Court judge and John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the firm asked the MPs and peers on the committee to remove the submission “as a matter of extreme urgency” and warned that its continued publication would have diplomatic consequences.

The letter, which was leaked to The Daily Telegraph, said: “We have no doubt that should the committee continue to publish then the injunction will be fully breached and further harm done to our client.

"There is a great deal more damage which could be caused to her, and which could be averted by the timely removal of this material. We hope that the committee will appreciate the serious injustice being done.

“We also hope that the committee will appreciate the diplomatic repercussions of continuing to publish Mr Burby's untested allegations about a friendly head of state in these circumstances.”

However the committee has decided at a private meeting to continue publishing the submission, in the face of the threats.

The attempt to bully the committee threatens to undermine the supremacy of Parliament. It follows widespread criticism of British courts for injuncting the publication of information.

Archerfield also threatened The Daily Telegraph with an injunction ahead of its reporting of Mr Burby’s submission on Friday night. No application was made, however, and the report was published in the following day's newspaper.

John Whittingdale MP, the committee's chairman, said last week that Mr Burby's evidence was an "interesting and relevant submission", given that his committee had been told by judges that super-injunctions were now "time–limited".

The last known attempt to gag the reporting of Parliament was in 2009, when lawyers for Trafigura, an oil firm, attempted to prevent newspapers publishing a parliamentary question.

Trafigura obtained a gagging order preventing any details of the question posed by Paul Farrelly MP being made public. It was abandoned after thousands of users of the Twitter website identified the parties involved.

The committee is made up of both MPs and peers and is considering the system of privacy and injunctions.

They were told earlier this year by Kenneth Clarke, the Lord Chancellor, that super–injunctions “are now being granted only for very short periods" and "you cannot have just long-running secret litigation”.